DATE OF FILING : 08-03-2010.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 30-06-2010.
Manawar Sultan,
son of Late Md. Idris,
residing at 4th floor, 99, Pilkhana 2nd Lane,
P.S. Golabari,
District Howrah COMPLAINANT.
Versus -
1. CESC Limited,
having its registered office at CESC House,
Chowringhee Square,
Kolkata 700 001.
2. The District Engineer,
CESC Ltd., Howrah Regional Office,
433/1, G.T. Road ( North ), P.S. Golabari,
District Howrah 1. OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
1. Honble President : Shri J. N. Ray.
2. Honble Member : Dr. Dilip Kr. Chakraborty.
3. Honble Member : Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya.
C O U N S E L
Representatives for the complainant : Shri Nirmal Kr. Kamila,
Shri Sukanta Majhi,
Ld. Advocates.
Representatives for the opposite party nos. 1 and 2
: Shri Abhijit Bagchi,
Smt. Kakali Mitra,
Ld. Advocates.
F I N A L O R D E R
This is to consider an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 praying for electricity and installation of separate meter on the ground of deficiency in service.
Fact of the case, in brief, is that the complainant is a tenant under one Kesari Khanna in respect of a room ( room no. 13 ) in the fourth floor of the building at HMC Premises no. 99, Pilkhana 2nd Lane, P.S. Golabari, District Howrah. The complainant has applied before the o.p. no. 2 for separate meter for supply of electricity for his tenanted room. The complainant took an application form from o.p. no. 2 for a separate meter for domestic supply of electricity in his tenanted portion. On request of the complainant the o.p. no. 2 directed the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.500/- only as earnest money against such separate meter supply. Accordingly, on 30.12.2009 the complainant deposited the said EMD of Rs. 500/- and o.p. no. 2 handed over an application form vide no. 55691983135. Then the complainant submitted the same before the o.p. no. 2 on the same date. Thereafter on 05.01.2010 an inspection was carried out by the men of CESC Ltd. On 14.01.2010 the o.p. no. 2 sent a letter to the complainant with the contents that Pursuant to receiving your application vide Annexure A for obtaining estimate for providing supply of electricity at the above and our subsequent inspection, we regret our inability to accede to your request for separate metered supply as the existing meter from which you are getting supply is of adequate capacity to cater to your load requirement as asked for. Here Annexture A denotes Earnest money-receipt to be retained by the applicant. Accoding to the complainant, he is a bonafide occupier in a room on the 4th floor of the building and as such he is entitled to get the separate metered supply in his name at premises no. 99, Pilkhana 2nd Lane, P.S. Golabari, District Howrah. The complainant is a bonafide tenant and he has every right to take electric connection for tenanted portion. Hence the application.
The o.ps. no. 1 and 2, CESC Ltd. contested the case by filing written version.
O.ps. no. 1 and 2 CESC Ltd., contended that on receipt of the application from the complainant on 30-12-2009 for .50 kw. domestic load at HMC Premises no. 99, Pilkhana 2nd Lane, P.S. Golabari, District Howrah., the men of CESC Ltd. went for an inspection on 05.01.2010. During the inspection it was found that the complainant had been residing at the 4th floor of the premises and he was getting supply from the alleged landlord. Therefore, o.ps. rejected the application of the complainant on the ground of splitting of load as per the mandate of statute and on bonafide good faith. The o.ps. no. 1 and 2 duly informed the matter to the complainant by letter dated 14-01-2010. In the written version the o.ps. also submit that there is no dispute about the fact that a bonafide occupier is entitled to get electricity but in the present case the complainant is already getting supply from the meter existing in the circuit and alleged to be from the meter of the landlord. It is not proved that the o.ps. had neglected to discharge their duties. The counsel for o.ps. submits that in the event that if the Ld. Forum passes any order directing the answering o.ps. to provide supply to the complainant, they can do so only through a Meter Pillar Box to be installed on the HMC land adjacent to the premises of the complainant. It is also stated in the written version that the premises at which complainant is seeking separate supply is situated at highly pilfer prone area and in such cases the o.ps. used to provide supply through Meter Pillar Box situated at any HMC land. Being public utility concern the o.ps. always eager to cater supply to any intending consumer but at the same it cannot override its own rule and regulations. All the allegations made against the o.ps. are false and baseless. So the instant case is liable to be dismissed against the o.ps. with cost.
In view of the pleading of the parties following points arose for determination :
Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. no. 1 and 2, CESC LTD. ?
Is the complainant entitled to get an order in terms of Section 14 of the C.P. Act, 1986 ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience of discussion and for brevity.
It is admitted fact that the complainant has applied for supply of electricity with a meter in his name. Accordingly he has deposited the required amount to the o.ps. on 30-12-2009. On the basis of deposit of earnest money o.ps. handed over an application form and the complainant filled up the form and deposited it on the same date. Accordingly, the men of o.ps. went for an inspection and as the men of CESC found that the complainant is enjoying the electric supply from the landlord, the CESC informed the matter to the complainant denying the supply of electricity.
On perusal of the material on records it has come to the notice of the Forum that the complainant is a tenant of one Kesari Khanam. Counsel for o.ps. argued that the complainant should prove his tenancy first. The complainant has duly filed the rent receipt with his complaint before the Forum. Moreover, whether the complainant is a tenant or not the Forum has observed that the CESC has intimated the complainant ( for non supplying of electricity with new meter ) in the same address, for which address the electric supply was asked from the o.ps. So it is view of the Forum the complainant is certainly an occupier of the said premises in question. Any occupier can get the electric connection as per Electricity Act. And the o.ps. did not deny this fact that the complainant is an occupier of the said premises for which the complainant had applied for electric connection with a meter in his name.
According to law, the complainant being a bonafide consumer of electricity is entitled to get the service connection at his occupied premises.
Now turning to the question of deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. it appears that the men of o.ps. went for inspection but as they had observed that the complainant was enjoying the electricity they did not comply with the application of complainant.
O.ps. have duly informed the matter to the complainant by their letter dated 14.01.2010. They have mentioned in their letter that Arrangement will be made to refund the earnest money deposited by you after deducting 25persent from the same in terms of Clause 15 of the Regulation No. 22 of the Learned West Electricity Regulatory Commission if we do not receive from you any communication within 45 days from the date of this letter without further reference to you. The o.ps. have alleged that the complainant has applied for separate connection for splitting of the load.
Complainant has filed other copy bills of CESC of same premises who are separately enjoying the electricity by separate meters in their names ( from the same meter box situated in the premises in question). When the other consumers are enjoying electricity by separate meters then why the complainant shall not get same benefit, the counsel for o.ps. cannot satisfy the Forum. When many other are enjoying the electricity by separate meters from same meter box in question then only complainant will not get separate meter for splitting of load this argument does not stand. Again o.ps. have agreed to give connection to the complainant by fixing separate meter from another meter pillar box to be installed at HMC land.. If splitting of load is only criteria for denying supply of electricity by CESC, then CESC must not give him connection from any other meter box, whether that meter box is situated at HMC land or not.
CESC has opined that due to pilfer prone area all process are going on for shifting of meter box to stop pilferage. In due course, if the meter box of the premises in question will be shifted to HMC land then certainly all meters including the meter of the complainant will be shifted.
Accordingly, the complainant will get the connection from the same meter box in the premises with a new meter in his name.
Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case the Forum holds and concludes that the complainant is entitled to get appropriate order in terms of Section 14 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
In the result the application succeeds.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the consumer complaint is allowed on contest against o.ps. but without cost.
The o.ps. no. 1 and 2, CESC Ltd. is directed to give electric connection by installing separate electric meter after compliance of all formalities by the complainant within 30 days thereof.
Thus the application is disposed of.
Let certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties, free of costs.
